1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Details of the disposition

The Plaintiff registered a business for the purpose of construction business (housing Construction and Sales Business), newly constructed and sold multi-family housing (hereinafter “instant housing”) in the first place of Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant housing”), and filed a comprehensive income tax return for the year in which sales proceeds accrue, and the amount calculated by applying simple expense rate to sales proceeds as income amount, and filed a comprehensive income tax return and payment for the year 2016 by applying the special tax reduction and exemption for small and medium enterprises under the operation of construction business.

On July 27, 2015, ( September 1, 2017), the head of Seoul Regional Tax Office, upon conducting a personal integration investigation against the plaintiff on July 27, 2015, issued a notice to the defendant that the amount of income should be calculated based on standard expense rate by excluding the simple expense rate applied by the plaintiff at the time of global income tax return, and that the plaintiff should be denied special tax reduction and exemption by deeming that the plaintiff was not operating a construction business.

On June 18, 2018, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 207,727,730 as global income tax (including additional tax) for the year 2016.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on November 22, 2018.

The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the legitimacy of the disposition does not need to exclude special tax reduction and exemption for small and medium enterprises under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act in cases where the Plaintiff’s business is a construction business, and the Plaintiff merely borrowed a construction license from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) for the construction of the instant housing and did not engage in any act related to the construction of the instant housing. The Plaintiff directly managed and supervised the construction site by employing a working group leader.

Therefore, the name of the contractor is the plaintiff.